- Evaluation Plan:
- 2011-2015, Indonesia
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 11/2014
- Completion Date:
- 01/2014
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 25,000
Provincial Governacne Strengthening Programme (PGSP)
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 TOR IC International PGSP Evaluation_final_erc.doc |
tor | English | 219.50 KB | Posted | 485 |
 140129 PGSP Final Evaluation_ERC.pdf |
report | English | 1921.71 KB | Posted | 918 |
| Title | Provincial Governacne Strengthening Programme (PGSP) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00057787 | |||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2011-2015, Indonesia | |||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Final Project | |||||||||
| Status: | Completed | |||||||||
| Completion Date: | 01/2014 | |||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 11/2014 | |||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | |||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
|||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
|||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 25,000 | |||||||||
| Source of Funding: | PGSP | |||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | |||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | |||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
|||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | No | |||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Bappenas | |||||||||
| Countries: | INDONESIA |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Recommendation 1 - Replicate the PGSP approach: Acknowledge the appropriateness of PGSP and its partnership approach to governments at national, provincial and district/municipality levels and in particular the role of facilitation teams in providing a bridge between national and sub-national government. Commit to replication in other provinces and continue to work in current provinces, replicating in an increased number of districts. |
| 2 | Recommendation 2 - Tighten the rigour of the design process: The design framework needs to better reflect sufficiency of outputs in reaching the overall provincial governance strengthening outcome. There should also be more specific objectives regarding the involvement of districts and municipalities and also of the DPRDs. |
| 3 | Recommendation 3 - Focus on social and economic development: Recognise that while PGSP was originally framed in terms of improving economic development, the PGSP approach is as valid to work in social development as it is in economic development. In particular place more focus on public involvement in pro-poor planning and in providing feedback to governments implementing services. |
| 4 | Recommendation 4 ? Focus on implementation of services: Extend the scope to include direct support for implementation of services by provinces and districts and include stronger focus on accountability. Place a much heavier emphasis in the future on poverty reduction as being a major development outcome and seek to engage the public and civil society organisations (CSOs) more comprehensively. |
| 5 | Recommendation 5 ? Link with villages: Consider a more comprehensive inclusion of village or community planning, community voice and demand creating elements in future programming bearing in mind that this requires up-front assessment of local political economy (i.e. what will work and what will not). Consider how top-down and village elements can best work in a complementary fashion. UNDP should consider complementary or parallel activities being undertaken by other UNDP programmes or other GOI or donor programmes that can be adapted to add value to provincial roles in stimulating village voice in development planning and monitoring. Examples include (but are not limited to) UNDP?s own work on village planning through the Peace Through Development (PTD) initiative and the Australian Government?s work through the Australian Community Development and Civil Society Strengthening Scheme (ACCESS). |
| 6 | Recommendation 6 ? Follow through on bureaucracy reform: Recognise that bureaucracy reform is a long term endeavour and that roadmaps are really at the start of the process. Therefore focus in the future on helping sub-national governments to follow through on bureaucracy reform. Also consider integration of civil servant (pegawai negeri sipil or PNS) performance measurement in future PGSP style activities. |
| 7 | Recommendation 7 ? Follow through on implementing regulations: UNDP has built experience and expertise to gain a valuable and neutral niche in assisting GOI with upstream policy development for regional autonomy and decentralisation, including revisions to Laws and regulations. If Law 32/2004 is revised, continue to carry forward the results of work on reforming national decentralisation and regional autonomy law and work selectively on implementing regulations that better link programs across sectors and between provinces, districts and towns, recognising the long lead times this may entail. If the revision to the Law is not enacted in the period of the current Government, UNDP should review with GOI the need for PGSP type support for decentralisation and regional autonomy policy development in the future. UNDP should consider that, regardless of the revision being enacted or not, it is likely that there will be further needs for policy development aiming to harmonise national, provincial and district development efforts and that UNDP is in a position to help. |
| 8 | Recommendation 8 ? Deploy more resources in the provinces: Acknowledge that programme resources are required both centrally and in the provinces but endeavour in future support to place more resources at the provincial level so as also to take in more comprehensive work in districts, municipalities and where appropriate with communities. |
| 9 | Recommendation 9 ? Invest in M&E and learning: Consider a more comprehensive investment in results and outcome monitoring, learning, knowledge management and ongoing evaluation in future phases. This might include more focused research and knowledge management. Note that this implies greater allocation of funds for this area and a notional 10% of programme funding would not be inappropriate. |
| 10 | Recommendation 10 ? Immediately document PGSP knowledge gained: Immediately take forward the body of knowledge that PGSP has helped to produce and prepare it for use in future programmes; i.e. urgently assemble and disseminate knowledge and methods from PGSP, in particular to take advantage of the opportunity to influence thinking by future national leaders as Bappenas works to formulate the next National Medium-Term Development Plan. |
| 11 | Recommendation 11 ? Improve rigour in programme changes: Improve the paper trail in changes made to future programmes during implementation. Institute greater rigour in tracking indicators and targets. |
| 12 | Recommendation 12 ? Focus on sustainability throughout: Focus clearly and logically on sustainability in design documents and define an exit (or sustainability) strategy as part of the design. Recognise the need to develop and keep in mind the exit strategy from the inception of any new programme. |
| 13 | Recommendation 13 ? Share knowledge with other programmes: Consider undertaking, as part of the design process, knowledge sharing with other programs that involve complementary aspects such as village planning and public finance management. |
| 14 | Recommendation 14 ? revise funding mechanisms: Reflect urgently on lessons from previous experiences with DIPA as preparation for future PGSP type work, especially if DIPA is going to be the only or predominant mechanism to channel funds to sub-national governments. Therefore in the future close relations/communications with MoF and MOHA will remain very important. |
1. Recommendation: Recommendation 1 - Replicate the PGSP approach: Acknowledge the appropriateness of PGSP and its partnership approach to governments at national, provincial and district/municipality levels and in particular the role of facilitation teams in providing a bridge between national and sub-national government. Commit to replication in other provinces and continue to work in current provinces, replicating in an increased number of districts.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19] [Last Updated: 2014/12/19]
This is a good recommendation, PGSP will continue working in the same manner in terms of its partnership approach to government and in facilitating national-subnational government. As for the recommendation to replicate the approach in other provinces, it will be taken into consideration for the next phase of PGSP.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess the extent to which current target provinces still require assistance and facilitation.
2. Incorporate the partnership approach in the design of PGSP?s second phase.
3. Develop criteria in selecting new pilot provinces/districts
[Added: 2014/12/19] [Last Updated: 2018/11/07] |
DGPRU | 2015/01 | Completed | History |
2. Recommendation: Recommendation 2 - Tighten the rigour of the design process: The design framework needs to better reflect sufficiency of outputs in reaching the overall provincial governance strengthening outcome. There should also be more specific objectives regarding the involvement of districts and municipalities and also of the DPRDs.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This is an important recommendation; UNDP should refine the design process of the project, to ensure sufficiency of outputs in reaching the outcome. The need for greater involvement of the legislative is duly noted and recognized and should be, along with involving districts/municipalities, reflected in clearer objectives and outputs.
Key Actions:
3. Recommendation: Recommendation 3 - Focus on social and economic development: Recognise that while PGSP was originally framed in terms of improving economic development, the PGSP approach is as valid to work in social development as it is in economic development. In particular place more focus on public involvement in pro-poor planning and in providing feedback to governments implementing services.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
Supporting pro-poor growth and economic development is a global UNDP concern. There is an opportunity to elaborate linkages with social-economic development. Within existing PGSP initiatives, there has been an improvement of the utilization of data for development planning. CSOs and academia were involved in activities, while the media was also engaged to advocate issues relating to human development and decentralization. We recognize that for pro-poor growth to take place in provinces and districts, the public and the poor need to participate in reform processes. Approaches to increase the voice and influence of the public to make government more accountable to their needs should be included in future project designs.
Key Actions:
4. Recommendation: Recommendation 4 ? Focus on implementation of services: Extend the scope to include direct support for implementation of services by provinces and districts and include stronger focus on accountability. Place a much heavier emphasis in the future on poverty reduction as being a major development outcome and seek to engage the public and civil society organisations (CSOs) more comprehensively.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This recommendation is in line with the one above. PGSP did start the involving CSOs and engaging the public since 2012. This recommendation will also be taken up in the remaining project period in so far possible. Media and CSOs will be engaged to monitor the implementation of bureaucracy reform.
Key Actions:
5. Recommendation: Recommendation 5 ? Link with villages: Consider a more comprehensive inclusion of village or community planning, community voice and demand creating elements in future programming bearing in mind that this requires up-front assessment of local political economy (i.e. what will work and what will not). Consider how top-down and village elements can best work in a complementary fashion. UNDP should consider complementary or parallel activities being undertaken by other UNDP programmes or other GOI or donor programmes that can be adapted to add value to provincial roles in stimulating village voice in development planning and monitoring. Examples include (but are not limited to) UNDP?s own work on village planning through the Peace Through Development (PTD) initiative and the Australian Government?s work through the Australian Community Development and Civil Society Strengthening Scheme (ACCESS).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This is a sound recommendation, and PGSP have tried to incorporate this approach within its current work, strengthening bottom up planning mechanism. For example, the theme of NTT Provincial Human Development Report is on village and local competitiveness for better human development. Although there is no direct work at the village level, it is expected that there is a link between province and village, taking into account the new law on village. This recommendation will also be taken into consideration if the second phase of PGSP is more specific and focusing on one sector. But if PGSP 2 plans to work in several sectors, than it may be hard have a comprehensive inclusion of village level.
Key Actions:
6. Recommendation: Recommendation 6 ? Follow through on bureaucracy reform: Recognise that bureaucracy reform is a long term endeavour and that roadmaps are really at the start of the process. Therefore focus in the future on helping sub-national governments to follow through on bureaucracy reform. Also consider integration of civil servant (pegawai negeri sipil or PNS) performance measurement in future PGSP style activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This recommendation should be taken into consideration in future work on public service delivery and bureaucracy reform, especially where it remains a development priority. Work on bureaucracy reform should be linked with the new Law on Public Civil Service (UU ASN). UNDP can support the professionalization of service delivery provided through government agencies, and align this with minimum standards and public sector reforms. Changing the way civil servants work and instill ideas of clean and quality public services as a right of the community is a long-term endeavor.
Key Actions:
7. Recommendation: Recommendation 7 ? Follow through on implementing regulations: UNDP has built experience and expertise to gain a valuable and neutral niche in assisting GOI with upstream policy development for regional autonomy and decentralisation, including revisions to Laws and regulations. If Law 32/2004 is revised, continue to carry forward the results of work on reforming national decentralisation and regional autonomy law and work selectively on implementing regulations that better link programs across sectors and between provinces, districts and towns, recognising the long lead times this may entail. If the revision to the Law is not enacted in the period of the current Government, UNDP should review with GOI the need for PGSP type support for decentralisation and regional autonomy policy development in the future. UNDP should consider that, regardless of the revision being enacted or not, it is likely that there will be further needs for policy development aiming to harmonise national, provincial and district development efforts and that UNDP is in a position to help.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
UNDP will continue monitoring the revision of Law No.32/2004 on regional government. There is still the expectation that the law will be enacted as it is the basic law for decentralization. In parallel, at this stage, PGSP is preparing an assessment of how Law 32 relates to other important legislation, such as the Village Law, Civil Service Law and Local Election Law. As mentioned in the recommendation, regardless of whether the law is passed, there is still a need to address decentralization, especially with regards to harmonizing administrative levels (national, provincial and district/municipal).
Key Actions:
8. Recommendation: Recommendation 8 ? Deploy more resources in the provinces: Acknowledge that programme resources are required both centrally and in the provinces but endeavour in future support to place more resources at the provincial level so as also to take in more comprehensive work in districts, municipalities and where appropriate with communities.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This is a sound recommendation, especially if UNDP continues to emphasize front-end service delivery at the sub-national level. However, it is important to note that a new regulation has been passed on sub-national fund chanelling in 2012. PGSP was able to directly support provinces and districts because it applied the former regulation. In the future, this will become a challenge faced by many projects.
Key Actions:
9. Recommendation: Recommendation 9 ? Invest in M&E and learning: Consider a more comprehensive investment in results and outcome monitoring, learning, knowledge management and ongoing evaluation in future phases. This might include more focused research and knowledge management. Note that this implies greater allocation of funds for this area and a notional 10% of programme funding would not be inappropriate.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This recommendation is in line with the unit?s intention of strengthening the research and knowledge management. Similar recommendations have been made in other project evaluations. This recommendation will be taken into consideration in designing new projects.
Key Actions:
10. Recommendation: Recommendation 10 ? Immediately document PGSP knowledge gained: Immediately take forward the body of knowledge that PGSP has helped to produce and prepare it for use in future programmes; i.e. urgently assemble and disseminate knowledge and methods from PGSP, in particular to take advantage of the opportunity to influence thinking by future national leaders as Bappenas works to formulate the next National Medium-Term Development Plan.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
PGSP is currently preparing strategies to utilize gained knowledge of PGSP, such as developing a book of lessons learned relating to the following: 1. innovation in public services 2. bureaucracy reform initiatives at the subnational level 3. division of government roles and function
Key Actions:
11. Recommendation: Recommendation 11 ? Improve rigour in programme changes: Improve the paper trail in changes made to future programmes during implementation. Institute greater rigour in tracking indicators and targets.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This is a valid concern that must be addressed. The programme must have a better system for managing changes of indicators and targets. For this project, the M&R officer is working to maintain the paper trail of tracking changes of indicators and targets.
Key Actions:
12. Recommendation: Recommendation 12 ? Focus on sustainability throughout: Focus clearly and logically on sustainability in design documents and define an exit (or sustainability) strategy as part of the design. Recognise the need to develop and keep in mind the exit strategy from the inception of any new programme.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
Concerns about sustainability have been taken up by the UNDP Country Office, and a number of measures are underway to improve planning for sustainability. During the transition period, PGSP will monitor and identify key issues related to sustainability that requires advocacy, lobby and etc. (i.e. whether or not tools introduced are being utilized or policy advises has been institutionalized) In the development of a new project, this recommendation will be included. .
Key Actions:
13. Recommendation: Recommendation 13 ? Share knowledge with other programmes: Consider undertaking, as part of the design process, knowledge sharing with other programs that involve complementary aspects such as village planning and public finance management.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This recommendation has been taken into consideration while developing the next phase of PGSP. Interviews conducted have been including programs that might be complementary to future PGSP focus.
Key Actions:
14. Recommendation: Recommendation 14 ? revise funding mechanisms: Reflect urgently on lessons from previous experiences with DIPA as preparation for future PGSP type work, especially if DIPA is going to be the only or predominant mechanism to channel funds to sub-national governments. Therefore in the future close relations/communications with MoF and MOHA will remain very important.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]
This is valid concern and should be addressed by UNDP in increasing communication with MoF and MoHA. (specifically PMEU) DIPA mechanism will most likely be used again in the future, however, guidelines and SOP on how to use it will be modified for further improvement, such as earlier planning and tighter focus as suggested by the evaluators. COSS mechanism could be used to bridge activities prior DIPA mechanism is in place
Key Actions: